leagueoflegendsfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Administrative Changes
Nystusgate First of all, on this very day (April 5th, 2011) there were some editing issues with the user Nystus, which is now a former administrator. The incident involved these three pages if you want to look at them before casting any opinion: MoS, Quotes' discussion in my user page and Blitzcrank Background history. The decision was made temporarily since the purpose if the demotion was to stop the edit war. Since the community had already some issue with him, I left to discussion for the community to vote if they you want Nystus to be an administrator again or would you like him to be removed from the administration staff. Promote him to Admin # NeonSpotlight - I believe that Nystus should be promoted back to his administrator position but with the condition that if this situation occurs again he's removed from the staff altogether. I realize that Nystus is an amazing contributer to the wiki and works hard to make the wiki professional, however he does, in my opinion, have a problem with authority and isn't that great of a public face for the wiki due to the way he conducts himself (brash and judgmental). I feel as though if Nystus was given his administrator position back with this conditional clause (and maybe another concerning his use of bans) it would keep him in line and if it doesn't then it's the last straw and it's unconditional expulsion from the wiki staff for him. # Zelgadis87 - I agree that rollback wars are very immature, he is overcritical and his attitude might not be the best; however I feel he is one of the few that truly cares for the wiki and wants it to be the best and most accurate source of informations. Having no proper communication channel to discuss wiki rules maybe exacerbated this issue, but his contributions were done with the best intentions, at least in my opinion. In conclusion, in my eyes he has been a good administrator so far (this accident apart), and should continue to be one, with the only condition of trying to have more civil discussions in the future and not resorting to meaningless edit wars. # Mr Lovely I feel like Nystus serves a vital role in the wiki. There is something valuable to be had from a perfections who stamps their foot with some dilligence on the issue of maintainig quality. Whatever personality conflicts may exist, any edits he has made have been in an effort to improve the wiki and I feel have succeeded in this regard. His contributions are solid and his reasoning is logical. After sleeping on this for a bit, I've come to the conclusion that the only thing demoting him to a moderator does is slap him on the hand. As long as we've established that the bureacracy of the wiki needs to be respected (as begrudgingly as possible), I think he should remain in a position where his abilities can be better used. # AntiZig (talk, ) - back to admin with a warning. First thing I want to say is the community needs to get off Nystus' back. It wasn't the community that was having problems with him, it was him having problem with other user in the community (anyone want to argue this, let me know). Second, this temporary demotion is outright disgraceful for this wiki. Why wasn't Kaz demoted then? 2 wiki admins engaging in a tug of war ("rollbackwar") as a couple of 5 year olds. I say both are equally guilty, not just Nystus. This is a bloody wiki, with TALK pages, that's what they were made for, TALKING THINGS OUT, before crap like the change history on blitzcrank's page can happen. If the two users cannot reach a compromise, we create a POLL to ask OTHER EDITORS help solve the issue. The fact that we are having this page created is pathetic. The fact that our head admin, Kaz, was involved in something like this is even more pathetic. Thirdly, doing half-assed edits to MoS to "prove" your point isn't solving the issue. (Yes, I do have a personal problem with slapping random formatting guidelines in the middle of Patch Notes formatting (yes, Kaz, I mean you here and next time you decide to do something like this I suggest you find a better place for it). Lastly, lets try to keep this wiki professional, rather than e-drama wiki version of 4chan or similar. The more situations like these we have the worse we look in the eyes of people who have to witness it. # Texas Snyper - Normally I'm not a fan of E-peen wars, regardless of who is right and who is wrong because the determining factor of said right and wrong is usually the opinion of one of the people in the war. AntiZig brought up a lot of good points and I'd agree with him on this. Also, I would like to ask everybody this question: In the big scheme of things, how important or lifechanging is this petty dispute? This is a user edit website maintained by people in their spare time. # Sam 3010 - Had I not gone to sleep the minute after I asked him the same thing about Blitzcrank Quotes, I would have probably been dragged into all this. From the moment I joined the wikia, I started having problems with one person and one person only, evil-always-present; but to be honest I always thought that that was just an online façade and we were just teasing each other. Have Kaz not joined and defended me on our first brawl, I would probably be still serving my 1 year ban sentence (not that I would ever come back after that). I have always admired Nystus desire and actioins to improve the wiki and keep it in a clean, accurate state; but I do feel that he has a negative influence all over him, his comments and his decisions, and even if that was just a joke, something like this was destined to happen from the moment he got his hands around the banhammer. I agree with Tech's comment below, he is an excellent contributor but his decisions can't possibly be the correct ones for an Administrator, I hope we will change now, and if he something similar happens again I would propose removing him from staff. Also, I have noticed he has a great project in mind and I wouldn't feel good if he doesn't do it just because of further demotion. However I will change my vote to be the sames as Tech's if I find out that he decides not to continue the project. #*"Finish your project with now-limited tools or else I'll demote you even further", eh? 17:40, April 6, 2011 (UTC) #** Fair and valid point. Sam 3010 17:50, April 6, 2011 (UTC) Leave him as a Moderator # Vyrolan - I would normally agree with NeonSpotlight on this kind of situation. However when I read through the edits/histories on the two pages and the discussion on KazMx's talk page, I feel differently. It should never ever ever come to "Rollback war" especially between two high-ranked editors. The discussion both in edit comments and on the talk page are also not what I would call "civil" or in any way productive. You also can't just delete/change a rule that impacts the entire community just because you don't agree with it. The community has grown a lot recently and a lot more opinions are gathered before making decisions. That evolution is a good thing and these actions fly in the face of it. I feel KazMx handled the situation admirably and to the best of his ability. I feel other recent projects have seen Nystus grinding against everyone. He's been quick to judge/dismiss/disagree. That said, his insight is good and so is his desire to maintain a high level of quality around the wiki. I feel it would be bad to lose him wholly, and so I could see him better able to contribute within the Moderator role. # User:Exiton - I think the way that he handeled this argument was very immature. We need to set an example for the other editors on the Wiki. If he has a disagreement with the styles used on the wiki he should discuss it with the other admin not start a rollback war. Separate from this he is harsh with his comments and overcritical with people. There has been several other instances where he has disagreed with people and not dealt with it in a professional manner. However, I am new to the wiki and really don't know him well. I don't know what he has done in the past or how he helped build the wiki. With the number of edits he has made and his rank he must have had an important role in making the Wiki what it is today. I also like his high standards, i feel he truly wants to make the wiki as good as it can be. We need a few strongly fixated people on the wiki, it keeps us on our toes, prevents small errors from creeping in. Im an right on the edge of saying keep him as moderator and demote him to rollback with the balance tipping slightly to moderator. Demote him to Rollback Editor # Technology Wizard - I noticed the recent edit war in the wiki activity today and here is my opinion: I believe that Nystus is a good contributor to the wiki, however, he has a negative attitude on the wiki. He is always threatening people about his so called, "Banhammer" and has banned innocent people. I think that it would a shame to remove him from our team, but I don't think that he has the right communication skills to have the power banning people. I have noticed that he loves banning people, and some of the reasons are just cruel. I will agree that he has helped the wiki grow and helped us establish what we have today, but I have had a personal experience where I was going to falsely be banned for a year. I was having an immature argument with him when a wiki contributor spammed his talk page with nonsense, he claimed to know how to check IP's and wanted to ban me for 1 entire year. He also had commented one time that he hates the wiki. Over all, I want Nystus to help us contribute, but I want his "Banhammer" removed, which is why I believe that Rollback Editor is the best position for him. I would like to see his progress as a Rollback Editor. If he shows that he is worthy of it, then I would agree to leave him as a moderator. If my suggestion for his demotion can't be followed through, then I would suggest him to be removed from the staff. Our wiki team needs to be organized and professional, if Nystus is unwilling to cooperate and have immature "Rollback wars" as well as abusing his "Banhammer", then this demotion should be considered something to be thankful for. Remove him from the Staff # UberTri - Personally, after watching how this whole edit war went through, I feel that it was a big mess. KazMx warned Nystus multiple times not to do the edits that he done. He still went on doing it, even at the expensive of losing his admin powers. I'm sorry, but this has crossed the line for not just me, but for the entire wiki. #*1 warning does not qualify as "multiple times" 04:51, April 6, 2011 (UTC) #**1 warning and several rollbacks from the founder plus multiple comments from different people do... wait for it... count. Sam 3010 04:58, April 6, 2011 (UTC) #***Um, just because he founded the wiki doesn't make him right 100% of the time, either. 03:12, April 18, 2011 (UTC) # Asperon Thorn - (can't get link to work with my name so if someone could tell me how that would be great.) Remove him. The Wikia is a source of information not a school yard, or soup opera. Childish squabbles have no place here. If he wants to contribute there is nothing stopping him from contributing as a regular user, but people with funny colored names need to be held to a higher standard. Frankly he hasn't shown he can live up to that standard. Asperon Thorn 15:58, April 6, 2011 (UTC) Neutral votes # Administrator: D3Reap3R - Okay, before anyone flames: I think I roughly got the overview; I saw the complains of KazMx and I see them reasonable. Like in a job or in the army, you are NOT to ignore or even defy the orders of a superior. Superiority can be defined in rank, but not in existence; Just making this clear. Anyway, I However think that Nystus tries to do a good job. He never tried to harm us effectively, at least not in the open and supported a lot of things. I had some conversations with him, ranging from normal small-talk to in-depth discussions about League of Legends. I can not choose about his fate in true agreement with myself; It's for me like choosing between KazMx, Sam 3010 or Nystus. I am not here to bring judgement or here to bestow neutrality to people. I am here to help these who need it, like everyone else. We are here to support the other, work as a team and therefore create a "unit" for the use of everyone. Damning one person for the wrong moves ? I think there was the lack of communication that led to this in the first place. There was no clear "this we choose" prior. This is what we should change in the first place. My humble opinion, maybe a little far-fetched or even wrong due lacking informations. This is why I am neutral on the vote. I am not going to choose between three persons I respect. Remember however, that every decision you take is having my support, even if I may not like it. D3Reap3R: German Emissary of the League - Administrative Strategy Specialist 16:16, April 6, 2011 (UTC) # Kaz - Since I was part of the conflict, voting myself would be unethical, as I told Tech yesterday. Any decision is made I'm good with it. - KazMx (Message me! ) 16:57, April 6, 2011 (UTC) Signatures The community has brought up some issues with the signature from certain editors. So we decided to create a special section in the MoS to address this issue, so I want your opinions in the comments section. Comments *For the record, "Wiki" is this place, "Wikia" are the ones who decided that Oasis is a great skin and people prefer tube-sized articles 04:39, April 6, 2011 (UTC) *Also I'm not here to be some damn spokesperson/role model... I'm here for facts 05:36, April 6, 2011 (UTC) * Vyrolan's responses: ** @User:Zelgadis87: How is there not a "proper communication channel to discuss wiki rules"? We've proven with several projects how good the wiki is for having discussions. He could have made a blog post. He could have posted in that page's comments or on that page's talk page. He could have brought it up on other users' talk pages to get their feedback. Did do anything even remotely resembling that? No, he just changed it because he didn't like it. ** @User:AntiZig: I retract my previous response to AntiZig...feel free to read the History if you are curious. AntiZig, thanks for explaining your position in response. I apologize for having judged your comments inappropriately. I still feel they are a bit aggressive and harsh, but I respect your reasoning if not your delivery. Thanks again for the additional insight. Vyrolan 17:30, April 6, 2011 (UTC) *** First, this is a discussion of personal actions by the user in the conflict. I don't agree that this conflict is viewed as a one user's fault when 2 were involved. Therefore, I don't understand why you take an issue of me making personal comments towards actions performed by Kaz during the time of conflict at hand. I see that those actions are wrong as well as the roll back war, and that is precisely why I'm bringing them up. I'm trying to look at all of the actions, not just Nystus'. I don't see anything blatant in that. Second, yes, I did read all the links, let me explain my understanding. The roll backs happened on the quote page first, then Kaz decided to go edit the MoS page to "legalize" his point (not dealing with the issue), then there was some more roll back war. Then on Kaz's talk page Nystus was the one who initiated the dialogue, not Kaz (if the dialogue was carried out before hand somewhere, this information was not presented, please provide a link). Somewhere down the discussion road and I quote: "And i'll rollback it :) - KazMx 01:59, April 6, 2011," which was basically saying, I don't care what you say/think or what your opinion is, I'll just roll back your edits. Which has been going on already and that comment is just instigating more roll back war and not trying to solve the issue. The correct response would have been to say "ok, lets see what others think on the subject" or anything similar. Instead there was a continuation of rolling back each other's edits like little children util Kaz demoted Nystus. So, if my understanding is wrong, please explain why, but for now I still hold my ground that Kaz was just as guilty in the whole incident as Nystus. --AntiZig (talk, ) 16:44, April 6, 2011 (UTC) **** Well, I have been provided with more insight about the problem and I see that you both present perfectly good explanations, I see now that Kaz had some fault over here even tho I wouldn't say "equally guilty" but still. Also this discussion isn't just about this recent event but about his overall behaviour which was just bad and rash. And I say "was" because I have seen some improvement just this past day, Nystus just needed a "slap" in the back to become more conscious. Sam 3010 17:02, April 6, 2011 (UTC) ** @User:Exiton: I agree that the wiki needs detail-oriented people. I agree that Nystus's insights about a lot of topics are valuable for this very reason. However I wish he expressed those insights better. ** @User:Technology Wizard: Do you have any examples of his "threatening people" with bans? I've never seen that...I know there was some issue with an incorrect ban when you first joined, but I can honestly say I've never seen any of this banning with malicious intent. I do think Nystus has gone overboard sometimes with the scope/length of bans, but that's just my opinion and he was still acting with the intent to make the wiki a better place. *** Well to start off, he has tried to ban me and Sam 3010 in the past. I also noticed that the wiki contributor that had started the mess where he wanted to ban me, was banned for 3 or 6 months. I think that this punishment is cruel for someone that actually fixed a mistake on my profile page. I believe that this user should have been banned but for 3 or 6 moths, that is just down right unnecessary and cruel. I also have seen some of the comments that people leave under champion pages. They asked him one time about something regarding the abilities and he told them that he was going to ban them for no legitimate reason. I believe that my demotion for him should be taken into consideration. -- Technology Wizard. ** @User:Texas_Snyper: I don't necessarily disagree that it's just a "user edit website maintained by people in their spare time", but it's still a community of people working together trying to build something. Cooperation, coordination, and communication are essential to the success of such an effort. * User:KazMx ** @User:AntiZig: the guideliness (MoS) are documented from material that it is already on the Wiki, to formalize it, . The reason I decided to "engage" in the actions I did was to stop the rollback editions, Nystus is not demoted he is temporarily extirpated from administrative powers. Finally i didn't "slap" random formating guidelines I was merely documenting the format that it was already there. If you read more carefully you'll notice that this Manual of Style is for the whole wiki not just your patch notes Mr. AntiZig. - KazMx (Message me! ) 15:37, April 6, 2011 (UTC) *** I did read, carefully, but you didn't. The section clearly states: Patch Notes Formatting. And having quotes formatting there has nothing to do with patch notes. As I stated before, if you want to put that information somewhere, pick a better place for it. I'm not saying delete it from the page, it simply doesn't belong to Patch notes formatting. Your reasons for making this addition to MoS is an erroneous justification given the time you added it in - you didn't discuss the issue, you simply stuck to your own opinion and tried to "legalize" it by making modifications to MoS. Now, MoS in general, from what I understand behind its purpose, needs to be a guidelines for NEW AND OLD information rather than simply documenting the old. In my opinion, the current MoS is very out-of-date and some sections need to be deleted and/or written anew. For example, linking to champion/item templates has no narrative on any of the formatting that goes inside, it also doesn't cover the formatting on either of the 4 tabs we have for each of the champion pages. -- AntiZig (talk, ) 16:44, April 6, 2011 (UTC) ** Sorry but was the rule regarding Quotes added before or after Nystus' edits on the Blitzcrank page? Because adding rules to prove a point doesn't make much sense to me. --Zelgadis87 16:37, April 6, 2011 (UTC) **Also I've yet to receive an explanation why he didn't like my changes 16:40, April 6, 2011 (UTC) ***Well, certainly it would be because it was so different to previous and without knowledge of Riot's personalization of Blitz on a recent JoJ it just looked ridiculous. Remember, once I asked you about Blitzcrank Quotes you took a couple posts before stating "blame Riot" and just that, I didn't remember the JoJ issue till today. You are too direct when trying to be rude, and far too vague when providing an explanation for your actions, even when people try to help you. Sam 3010 17:02, April 6, 2011 (UTC) **Because the articles follow certain guidelines which are standardized for all champions, not just Blitzcrank, the Manual of style isn't a Rulebook, but a documented guidelines of the Style used in the Wiki. Also It is just aweful to see them in CAPS. BECAUSE AS YOU NOTICE, WRITING WITH CAPS LOCKED LOOKS BAD. - KazMx (Message me! ) 17:49, April 6, 2011 (UTC) ***The caps would be inside the quote, to reflect it more accurately (this is/was the intention, not my actual opinion), not at random on a page. We should discuss as a community if this is appropriate or not, not start rollback wars/demoting people. --Zelgadis87 18:27, April 6, 2011 (UTC) ****It was in quotation marks 18:30, April 6, 2011 (UTC) * User:Exiton ** I have read through all of the comments made over the night/this morning and I think all that needs to be said has been said. I don't have anything to add except this. I think we should consider this issue closed. The majority of people want him promoted back to his old position and im fine with that. If we let this go on any longer I think it risks becoming a Flame War and that is not going to do anyone any good. The decision as to weather the edit itself is right or wrong is beside the point. The problem was lack of communication and that is what we must work on now. In my mind this is done. We should have a conversation about wiki style and quotation rules in another location. Exiton =:> 18:21, April 6, 2011 (UTC) ** Frankly, I agree with that. Let's finish this, the result would be him as an Admin again, but conditioned to be stripped of all powers should a problem arise again, ofc in that future case everyone would have to agree on who is at fault. Sam 3010 18:27, April 6, 2011 (UTC)